Judgment Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J. 1. This is a criminal revision by the petitioners, eight in number, for setting aside the order dated 27-4-1979 of the chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by which he had taken cognizance against 11 persons including these eight petitioners under sections 147, 323 and 379, I. P. C, 2. The opposite party, Bindeshwar Cbaudhary, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging that, on 31-12-1978, 11 persons arrayed as accused, which included the eight petitioners along with 15 to 20 persons formed an unlawful assembly, went upon plot no 183 of khata no.58 of village Atwarpur having an area of 26 decimal and dishonestly cut and removed the sugarcane crop grown thereon by the petitioners putting him to a loss of Rs.1600. The opposite-party protested at which Laxmi Sah, petitioner no.1, caught hold of him and the other accused assaulted him with fists and slaps and kept him confined for two hours. This complaint was -filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8-1-1979. He examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and then referred the matter for enquiry to the officer-in-charge, Bochacha Police Station, who reported that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. This report was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27-4-1979 and on the same date ho passed the impugned order and transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd class, Shri R. K. Rai, for disposal. Out of the 11 persons arrayed as accused in the complaint case, only the eight petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for quashing the criminal proceeding stated against them in the complaint case. 3. The contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first was that the delay in the filing of the complaint on 8-1-1979 in spite of the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 31-12-1978 showed the mala fide character of the complaint and as such the complaint should have been dismissed. 3. The contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first was that the delay in the filing of the complaint on 8-1-1979 in spite of the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 31-12-1978 showed the mala fide character of the complaint and as such the complaint should have been dismissed. The other contention raised was that petitioner no.1 having been entrusted by the Anchaladhikari, Bochaha to get the sugarcane crop harvested and keep it in safe custody, no offence can be said to have been made out against petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 being the Sarpanch no cognizance should have been taken against him without the previous sanction required by section 84-A of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948 ). These contentions were refuted by the learned counsel for the opposite-party. 4. It is indeed true that the occurrence, as alleged in the complaint petition, took place on 31-12-78 and the complaint was filed on 8-1-79 but an explanation has been offered both in the complaint petition as also in the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant for the delay made, the reasons assigred being that the complainant approached the police but the police did not take any action, and presumably after waiting for the action to be taken by the police for some time, the complainant came forward with a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, la view of the explanation offered by the complainant, prima facie, there is no reason to treat the complaint a mala fide one and the contention raised on this score, therefore, fails. 5. Coming to the second point, out of the 11 persons, who were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, only eight have approached this Court in this criminal revision. 5. Coming to the second point, out of the 11 persons, who were summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, only eight have approached this Court in this criminal revision. The submission was that whereas petitioner no.1, being the Sarpanch and having been entrusted with the harvesting of sugarcane crop by the Anchaladhikari, Bochaha, under Annexure 1, should be deemed not to have committed any offence. The other seven petitioners should not also have been summoned as they were men of petitioner no.1, who had been engaged in cutting the sugarcane crop. There is no assertion in the application for revision about petitioner nos.2 to 8 being the men of petitioner no.1 or about their harvesting the sugarcane crop on being engaged by petitioner no.1. 6. As regards petitioner no.1, the contention raised was that a bataidari proceeding was going "on in respect of the above land between the complainant on the one hand and some of the accused, not named in the application, on the other before the Circle Officer, Bochaha and it was in this proceeding that petitioner no.1 being the local Sarpanch was entrusted to harvest the sugarcane crop, in support of which Annexure 1 was filed. There is no document worth the name to show the pendency of any such bataidari proceeding nor the year thereof has also been mentioned in the application. Learned counsel for the opposite party (complainant) seriously challenged the pendency of any such bataidari proceeding, as alleged in the petition. He further challenged the genuineness of Anhexure 1, his further submission being that Annexure 1 is a manufactured and collusive document which has been brought into existence by petitioner no.1 to save himself from the criminal liability, Annexure 1 shows that petitioner no.1 was appointed an Assessor. The submission was that he was so appointed under section 69 (1) (b) of the B. T. Act which provides for the appointment of an officer to divide the produce by the Collector. There is no material to show that the Anchaladhikari, Bochaha, who is said to have passed the order, as contained in Annexure 1, was vested with the powers of a collector. There is no material to show that the Anchaladhikari, Bochaha, who is said to have passed the order, as contained in Annexure 1, was vested with the powers of a collector. No such document appears to have been produced before the inquiring Officer though when the persons, who assembled at the time of occurrence, made enquiry from petitioner no.1, he had stated that he was harvesting the crop under the orders of the Circle Officer, Bochaha. Thus prima facie there appears to be something fishy about Annexure 1. This is one aspect. 7. The other aspect is that the enquiry by the officer-in-charge was conducted under section 202, Cr. P. C. at which stage the accused has no locus standi. In the case of Smt. Nagawwa - Appellant V/s. Veeranna Shivaling-appa Konjalgi and others - Respondent, reported in AIR.1976 Supreme Court 1947, while dealing with the scope of the Inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. , their Lordships observed that the scope of the inquiry is extremely limitedonly to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint - (i) on the materials placed by complainant before the Court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether and prima facie case for issue of process has been made out ; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. Th"ir Lordships further observed that, in fact, in proceedings under section 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. If this is the position of the persons arrayed as accused at the state of enquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. they cannot be held entitled to pray for setting aside the other issuing process against them on the basis of the documents filed by them in the revisional court. While issuing process the Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to bs judicially exercised by him. P. C. they cannot be held entitled to pray for setting aside the other issuing process against them on the basis of the documents filed by them in the revisional court. While issuing process the Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to bs judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. Any document filed by the accused in the revisional court at such a stage may not be looked into. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna shivalingappa Konjalgi (supra) also supports this view. 8. The same principles should apply while considering the question of sanction also. In the instant case, as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no specific plea has been taken about the sanction. The mere fact that the accused proposes to raise a defence of the act having purported to be done in exercise of duty will not in itself be sufficient to justify the case being thrown out for want of sanction. Though on facts subsequently coming to light during the course of the trial the necessity for the sanction may be determined. This view is supported by a decision of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 251 (Pukhraj - Appellant V/s. State of Rajasthan and another - Respondent ). The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners must, therefore, also fail. 9. The result is that there is no merit in this criminal revision which fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.